Long but relevent (and hopefully interesting) post ahead for people wondering about/hoping for a third movie. TLDR version: The economic reality is that if there is one, and it's not a reboot way down the line, it'll probably go straight to video (though I'd be happy if it weren't!). Details below:

The movie business is a cruel mistress. Considering the financial performance of Revelation it's highly unlikely we'll see a third film anytime soon unless it goes straight to video or gets a limited theatrical release. The movie made $50 million worldwide on a $20 million production budget, true, and Bassett confirmed it made money for the producers. But Open Road, the US distributor, spent $20 million on marketing and distribution, plus whatever it cost to buy the rights in the first place. They only got money from the North American box office, since it was released by different companies everywhere else.

They didn't even make $20 million in North American box office just looking at the total numbers - and you also need to keep in mind that the actual theatres take a cut of the box office, so the distributor typically only gets about 60%. That'd put Open Road's take at less than $11 million against at least $20 million in expendiatures.

Of course, they also get money from DVD/Blu-ray sales - or they would, if they were doing them, but Open Road actually decided not to burden themselves with the financial responsibility of doing that release and licensed it out to Universal Home Entertainment instead. Obviously I don't know what kind of contract they have in this specific instance, but usually this sort of deal amounts to a flat rate licensing fee where the release company (Universal, in this case) gets the money from the actual sales. Open Road spared themselves the expense of mounting a release and marketing campaign on home video, sure, but they also likely cut out any chance of making money from said release outside of whatever Universal paid for the rights (and there's very little chance they paid $9 million for a theatrical flop).

In short, it's probably the case the US distributor lost money on the movie. Obviously, that means they won't be terribly excited to repeat it with a third film. Of course, Columbia pictures distributed the first film and declined the second, which is why the sequel had to be released by such a new, small-time distributor. Open Road losing money on the film effectively cuts a hole in that minor-studio "safety net" - other, similar distrubutors will also be much more wary of releasing a Silent Hill film in theatres now.

It's very likely that Davis Films is all for making another one; they made money on Revelation, and in interviews even after the disappointing opening weekend, producer Samuel Hadida seemed excited about the possibilites. The problem is that they finance movies through pre-sales; essentially, they sell the "package" to distributors before the movie is made. They'll say "it's going to be a movie in such-and-such franchise, with so-and-so writing and directing, and him-and-her starring, in 3D" - and see who's interested in distributing the movie in their company's territories. If all goes well, these companies buy the rights to release the movie in their country before the movie actually exists.

The money Davis Films makes from these sales is then used as the film's production budget, spent on actually making the movie. In some cases, films will be entirely financed this way, which is great for the producers because they've broken even before the movie ever opens. Sometimes it's simply a portion of the budget. In a company like Davis Films' case, it's a very large portion of the budget or even the entire budget. Therefore, the interest of distribution companies (and their belief they can actually make money by buying the rights and releasing the film) is the single biggest factor in a movie actually getting made.

Different countries' distributors will pay different amounts for a movie depending on how much they think they can make on it. Obviously, this means the bigger the country's film market, the more it's worth. The US is currently the world's largest and most valuable film market (though China is gaining ground pretty fast and India is nothing to sneeze at). That means a really big chunk of change to make the movie comes from a US distributor. And since Open Road didn't do well as the distributor for Revelation, it's very likely the required interest (and money) will not be there.

Some countries' distributors will probably be interested in a Silent Hill 3. In Russia, for example, Revelation did quite well. It opened at #1 in Hong Kong, Thailand, and Malaysia. It also did quite well in Ukraine. It cracked the top 3 in several other small territories as well. The issue is that, with the exception of Russia, these are very small markets. In most places in the world it performed similarly to America, opening at #5 or below and dropping fairly fast. There's no guarantee these distributors will have any interest in releasing another Silent Hill in their countries, and if they aren't, there goes the production money which is desperately needed in the probable absence of a US distributor.

Distributors will only buy the film rights for less than they think they can make - quite a bit less, since they will also need to spend money on marketing and still turn a profit. So even though Revelation made $13 million in Russia, no Russian distributor in their right mind is going to offer anywhere near that amount for a third movie. The bottom line is that it will be pretty hard to actually raise the money to make another film. $20 million will be almost impossible.

Even if they do manage to raise enough money from foreign distributors to make a movie, they still need a distributor to get it into US theatres. As previously mentioned, that will be very hard now. Some companies like Freestlye Releasing specialize in putting out independent product other studios won't touch and sending them into wide release. They take a flat fee and none of the box office revenue, and manage marketing and distribution. That sounds great, except they don't actually PAY for the film prints or marketing; that's all on the producers or a third-party company. And their results speak for themselves... in a pretty piss-poor way. Any success at Freestyle is a fluke. Their biggest hit was The Illusionist, which made $40 million... but was a co-release with a different company. Their biggest hit without another company was An American Haunting at just under $20 million after adjusting for inflation. Their average for a wide release is only about $5 million. In essence, they're for people who are desperate to get their movie released at any cost (their work with Uwe Boll after Lionsgate, Artisan, and Romar dumped him is a good indicator of this). It's not likely Davis Films would go this route; it's too expensive since they'd have to pay Freestyle and still do their own marketing, and the return on investment would probably be pretty damn low.

If they can raise any sort of money for a third movie it'd probably be closer to a DVD movie budget. Since they'll have a hard time finding theatrical distribution, that's a good match. Assuming Revelation sells well on home video and on demand, this is actually a pretty decently plausible possibility. This is the route that's kept franchises like Hellraiser, Amityville, and Children of the Corn alive. Anchor Bay, Dimension, Fox, and Lionsgate do this a lot (hell, Fox has made 4 direct-to-video Wrong Turn sequels in the past six years). Of course, the quality of said franchises' direct-to-video movies is... questionable (though Daniel Licht did work an an Amityville and a Children of the Corn, coincidentally).

So who knows. Maybe some day in the next few years there'll be a third flick about Silent Hill, West Virginia in our Netflix queues. Or none at all. But on a theatre marquee? Sadly, probably not.

First of all, wrong forum. This should be in the Media forum, not the General Discussion forum which is meant solely for the video games.

I couldn't give less of a darn about the money and production values involved in making movies, video games, etc. Money is nothing more than green paper we give imaginary value to through the usage of numbers in a capitalist society.

I care about the experience created, and whether or not it's of high quality. Revelation made a lot of dough at the box office, but it was critically panned by everyone. The moment you make a product for the sole purpose of money (and therefore craft your product to whatever can obtain the most money), it becomes stale. The trailers for Revelation pretty much spoiled the whole thing for me. I want passion and soul and excitement, and I'm not sure there's anyone out there experienced enough with the series to produce a third movie without it being another failure.

At this point, I think Konami should stop giving their Silent Hill rights to the film companies and just focus solely on the video games, which is another side of SIlent Hill that has been suffering lately as well, but that's another off-topic story I'll leave for later. And I don't know what else to say, since your post was more of a self-blog I can only nod my head to, so I'll just finish here.

Apologies about the section. This was originally a reply to another thread about the movie in this section, I split it off when I realized how long it was. If there's someone who can move threads or something that's fine.

Not sure why you'd need something else to say; you stated an opinion and brought up topics of discussion related to the original post. That's pretty much all anyone could ask.

I agree money is second to creativity and enjoyment when it comes to what matters for the end consumer and, ideally, the creator. And it's a shame how many interesting ideas never get off the ground because of money. That said, it is an unfortunate reality of the business. I thought some people might like to get insight into that since there's chatter about a third movie.

I wouldn't mind seeing another one, but I agree the focus on the games is more important since they're the "core" of the franchise. And of course, this series in particular has always been pretty cinematic. The real concern is that if we do end up with a deluge of crappy direct-to-video movies, it could cheapen the franchise in the public's mind (which is, as you noted, already a problem it's been having lately).

I'm hoping to see a third film. Did you see the way Revelation ended? There has to be at least one more movie. Rose is stuck there somewhere, Chris is looking for her & those police that went to Silent Hill in search of Heather....the next film will be epic; if there will be another one.

I must agree with Alex- I'd prefer if Konami just sticks to game development, and forget the movies. To me, there's yet to be a truly GOOD film adaptation of SH, making it strictly a game to me. However, that's just my own personal opinion; I'd just rather SH stay away from the movie box office.

All they need is several things to make the movie even more acceptable,like using different storyline from the original Silent hill game,so people won't expect the movie to EXACTLY the same as the game (which is almost impossible at some point),and if they want to make an adaptation,please stop making retcons,which only confuse the watcher. (or even us)

Hey, I buy dvds. I don't care too much for blu Ray, and while I enjoy Netflix, and torrents, i still rather HAVE the dvds for when the net goes out, not to mention Netflix doesn't always stream the movies you want.

Just this last week, I lost my cable and internet because the line was torn down by torrential wind. I had NOTHING to watch for a week because almost everything we have was on netflix.

LOL Nah, I wasn't offended, more like, hey I have a good reason why you buy dvds/blu rays. And yeah, I have a few blu ray dvds and a blu ray player, but I've never noticed a difference. Maybe I'm not sophisticated enough for it :P

Hmm I have all my game systems on hdmi, as well as my cable boxes. All tvs are upgraded, and still not seeing a difference :( Idk, Jarrod tends to think that the blu ray player we have sucks and thats why

This figure includes Blu-ray as well as standard DVD. Torrenting and YouTube don't make the studio any money so they're irrelevant in this case. Revelation isn't even available on Netflix streaming yet; not sure if this rental figure counts Netflix/Blockbuster online rentals.

Even if DVD sales were unimportant (they're not, though they are in decline), Revelation's sales are disappointing.

Ha ha, I still have DVDs... especially with SH since I collect all its merchandise. I don't have Blu-ray for the same reasons as Enjoyableari- hdmi cables and also it's currently expensive for us... I'd love to one day have it though. (:

And well, despite me being a fan of Revelation if you kick the "true" storyline aside, it's understandable why the sales are lower than fans would like. Especially, in my opinion, if you didn't watch it in 3D. When my friend and I first saw it in theaters we enjoyed the 3D edition, which made certain aspects of the film much, much more enjoyable, when specific theatrics were actually painfully cheesy in standard vision. For example and easily the worst, when Douglas has his fingers severed off by the Missionary. It looked very cool in 3D, but if viewing normally? Oh it's horrendous to watch. The occasional blood-splatters, too, such as when the nurses were assaulting the Brethren or when Heather shot a humanoid monster through the mouth: They too were pretty gnarly in 3D, but excruciatingly over-dramatic without it. Just same old fake gore... Revelation was designed to be a 3D experience, and I can certainly say it's meant to be viewed that way, or as previously stated otherwise certain themes are painful to watch. 3D aside, one scene in specific haunts me to this day, involving the Mock Spider. Now as we know it was the only beast completely dependent on animation, and the team did a superb job! It fit in well, although maintained a supernatural feel, which made it so disturbing. But the one scene that literally makes me cringe every time is when it decapitates the mannequin girl and impales its head with that black tube via the fingertip. Worst scene in the movie if you ask me. It's just... way, way too fake to be in a horror movie, considering that one scene nearly morphed it into a comedy. Lastly, the content itself. I mean I'll admit that I appreciate how the movie was at least more like the game, but at the same time it would only please mostly the gaming audience as so much would've perplexed those entirely unexposed to the SH storyline. The ending, especially. Most people always want some sort of "good" curtain close, not saying the ending has to be in a necessarily good situation. Plenty of extremely successful films, such as Batman: The Dark Knight just as an example, ended at a stressful cliffhanger but was one hell of a success, as was the more current sequel, which also had a perplexing cliffhanger for those who didn't catch what was going on. As with SH:R, only us fans knew what was going on, right? We knew that was Travis Grady, Alessa's savior. We knew the likelyhood that the bus entering Silent Hill was Murphy Pendleton's, alluding to the possibile focus of a next film, if it is to happen. But for those whom had never played the saga? The ending would've been highly insignificant and, well, bland.

Well I wouldn't mind a third movie, maybe incorperate the 2nd or 4th game. But a response to AlexShepard, I ended up buying two copys of the movie. I bought the regular dvd because I didn't have my PS3 yet. And then I bought the blueray because it usually looks better than dvds.

AlessaGillespie wrote:Speak for yourself. I think the first movie is a great work of art, and not laughable in the least.

It was just "Good", but not great. I liked it. But the second movie is worthy of being laughed at. Looking at the recent games, the recent tech problems in all 3 2012 silent hill titles and the downright awful 2012 movie, my comment on this series being a "Laughing Matter" is true. I know a few people who say this series is garbage and only played the new titles. I remember getting my younger brother to play downpour. He hated it. I got him to play Silent Hill 3 and he loved it. He asked if it just came out and i said it was 10 years old. He was shocked that downpour was newer. This is sad, because many people buying these new garbage games will never experience a time the series was good. This is also true for Resident Evil.

Silent Hill: Revelation was not that bad, in fact, as you all know that it's the "sequel" to the first film and-- in my opinion, I really liked the film-- even though it had less scares and all, I think SHR was awesome!

Spenced031 wrote:Silent Hill: Revelation was not that bad, in fact, as you all know that it's the "sequel" to the first film and-- in my opinion, I really liked the film-- even though it had less scares and all, I think SHR was awesome!

Yes, I agree. Revelation might not be the best film ever, but I still think it was great.

1.) a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work.

"Revelation" changed numerous things. The Order, Alessa's appearance and her very own purpose was altered. In the pilot film, Alessa was scorned and practically "killed" for being a "witch", yet in "Revelation", it is directly stated while Heather is reading her father's notes that the Order was waiting for a child to be born to be the vessel of their god. It is a rough adaptation to the third game, not a sequel by its legitimate definition.

Its not really a sequel, no matter how hard it tried. It did a very poor job on following up the last film, and added too many plotholes. Whats worse is the film went absolutely nowhere. I think the only reason why it was based on Silent Hill 3 was because it was a best selling game and direct followup to the original, so thats why they did it.

Pretty much a simple cash in. (That failed. Look at money stats, they made pretty much nothing).
This is going to be kinda a surprise, but even the Resident Evil movies make more, and every single one gets worse reception than the SH films.

Id rather them end the movies before they try to make a movie based on Silent Hill 2 and shat all over its good rep.

Ha ha I swear if an adaptation of SH2 comes out? NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE I will go right to the company's door and RIIIIIIOOOOOT. B| You probably hear it all the time, but that game is sacred to most of the fanbase, including to me. A filming industry. Better not. Touch it. |: Realistically however, I do doubt this will occur seeing as Pyramid Head has already been given a purpose in the film series, and PH's biggest role is IN SH2. It would only cause utter confusion.

I too wish adaptations of SH would just stop, especially after the disappointment of Revelation. I think I may have said this before, but the only place it did quite well in was Japan. Bassett tried too hard to mesh the game into the pilot film's storyline, which was simply impossible. As you mentioned, I think the very best way to explain Revelation would be just a field of plotholes. What especially irked me was the fact that out of the damn sky suddenly arrived "oh hey, you weren't just here to stop Alessa, we've also magically knocked you up." Wat. I will at least say it had a couple decent voice-actors, like Mr. McDowell and Deborah Unger.

Although, to my understanding, I think SH2 was the best-selling... I do know it's the only installment in PS's Greatest Hits.

I could see a good Silent Hill 2 film happening but the problem with creating it is that we hardcore silent hill fans have Guy's voice burnt into our memories and hearing a different voice makes us feel uncomfortable such as when we heard TROY BAKER'S HEAVING VOICE. After a while, I think we'd get comfortable but I feel like it would be a problem at first but I could see a Silent Hill 2 film or even SILENT HILL 4 FILM BEING MADE. HOW COOL WOULD THAT BE?!

Canieattacos wrote:I could see a good Silent Hill 2 film happening but the problem with creating it is that we hardcore silent hill fans have Guy's voice burnt into our memories and hearing a different voice makes us feel uncomfortable such as when we heard TROY BAKER'S HEAVING VOICE. After a while, I think we'd get comfortable but I feel like it would be a problem at first but I could see a Silent Hill 2 film or even SILENT HILL 4 FILM BEING MADE. HOW COOL WOULD THAT BE?!

Personally, they should just leave those alone entirely. They have yet to be soiled by a movie and thats just fine. If they REALLY need to make another movie, they should just do an original movie with absolutely no ties to the previous. Maybe then, it will be successful. One of the biggest reasons SH Revelations failed was everyone was looking for it to be like Silent Hill 3, and the writers/producers tried too hard to make it like Silent Hill 3. That proved to be a failed attempt.

It's also highly unlikely that they would make another Silent Hill movie about the same thing. Honestly, they could just make another movie with no ties to any of the movies at all and it could be centered around Silent Hill. I think it would be pretty cool to see a Silent Hill movie just about Silent Hill.

Kudos, Ccrogers. If another film pops out, just pleeeaaase... let it be an original one. Personally me myself could not tolerate a SH2 adaptation... I just... no. Nononononono I cannot. Although, I really wouldn't doubt it that's what they try, the more I think about it... It's the franchise's most successful game, and the filming industry has no way of knowing just how dear a game may be to the fanbase. Ha ha, one quote that's actually always stuck with me from the first film's extra, "Path of Darkness", was something about how protective this fanbase is over "our" games. Whiiich I can agree to, ha ha.

As well, I don't know if this has been pointed out yet, but more info has been released about Don Carmody's attempt to make a third film happen:

Metroid is getting a kickstarted fanfilm and its legal, because the people doing it wont make any actual profit.

People could open a kickstarter, hire some camera men and a few stunt people, and pull off an hour long SH movie. The town i live in, Springport MI, would make the perfect setting. Look it up. Rent main street for a day and record some scenes there and in around the abandoned buildings. Too bad I do not have an HD camera, or else i would make a "Teaser" to show you what I mean.

No...don't even go there, just because some fans dislike the film adaptions or don't want a sequel do not make them not "true fans" there is no definition of "true fan" you're either a fan or you're not, preferences of certain things in the series do not differentiate to a "true fan".

It is absolutely 100% true that Bassett lied up a storm. He told multiple bald-faced lies about Revelation's connections to the first movie, including claiming that there would be no changes, which is obviously a steaming mound of horse shit. He does not deserve another chance to make a Silent Hill movie for many reasons, the most glaring of which is that he's a liar with no respect for the fans.

By that I meant "Bad fans", the ones who gave him negative comments on SH Revelation.

I really don't think Bassett did "that bad" on the movie! And yes I know him (I've seen his previouus films directed by him and he's one of my favorite Director's.) At least give him alittle credit for making Silent Hill: Revelation!

Hold on, HOLD ON! You're saying those who have a negative opinion are "bad fans"? Now I'm pretty sure everyone's going to have an opinion but for calling someone a "bad fan" for having a negative opinion over Bassett and his directing of Revelation is just purely childish, does that mean Alessa's a bad fan, other people on this wiki are bad fans because they didn't like the movie and gave negative comments? Might wanna watch your wording there.

And...you didn't get my point, when I said "Do you know him?" notice I said PERSONALLY meaning do you actually know the guy in real life...might wanna read what I put completely before commenting.

People are allowed to have whatever opinions they want without being subjected to insults and being looked down on. That kind of exclusionist attitude will not be tolerated. Understand that your personal opinions are not facts and that others have the right to disagree with you.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa... now the "true/bad fan" thing was absolutely ridiculous. Some fans like only the games, some only the movies, some, the comics. Hell, I know some people who've just seen artwork from the games and are interested in it. A "true" Silent Hill fan isn't mandated to love the movies; rather, a genuine fan is intrigued by the overall concept of a complex idea, and isn't afraid to admit when those in control of it make a blimp. A fan of anything is meant to be critical, hence why some people dislike the movies. Me? No, I don't wish to see another SH film. Especially if it's a SH2 adaptation, considering I will literally throw an armada of vampire camels with whipping cactus tails at those in charge if that happens. ... Well that's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the point. But I would be damned if someone came up to me and said, "Oh well Ozz, that means you're not a real fan!" Time to find SH1's hammer when that day comes. Just to offer another example, plenty of fans went crazy when the metal band Metallica released "The Black Album" because it seemed "different", primarily just because they cut their damn hair. Some were just straight-up idiotic, pulling off the same "UGH I HATE THIS I'M DONE AND IF ANYONE LOVES THIS THEY CAN'T BE A TRUE FAN!!" crap, while some of those who also didn't appeal to it fairly were just "eh, I don't really like it, but to each their own." Just another example to further explicate the point of this "true" fan stuff.

As well, just because some people don't like Bassett doesn't make he or she a "bad" fan. Myself as an example again: I don't like what Bassett did with "Revelation". I don't know shit about the guy personally, other than, as Riley and Alessa said, he spoon-fed shit into the mouths of those eagerly awaiting the film. Then when it came out, wham. Countless aspects were skewed from his root statements. Lying about what he's doing with a movie isn't exactly encouraging, and back to the critical trait from what I mentioned before: Fans are going to mentally write down the flaws they see. And, truth is, he was not a truthful director. A person seeing that doesn't mean they're a shitty part of the fanbase.

Might I also add that the fact that you've seen his past films doesn't mean you know Bassett. Knowing someone is a personal encounter. Hell, I practically stalk Guy Cihi on YouTube, but nope, I don't know him.

Lastly, it seems to me this convo is about to go in a circle since your wording still claims that you believe this "I no like Bassett or the movie= bad fan" idea. In no way is Alessa a negative fan. She doesn't like the second movie. Okay, no problem. And besides, do you honestly believe that if she was just some shitty fan, that she would've been on this wiki for years and invested so much time in it?

Just an update to the original point of the thread: Since release, Revelation has made about $3.7 million in DVD sales in the US. This number does not include Blu-ray sales, but using the typical Blu-ray market share (~25%) one can estimate the real number is around $4.6 million.

For comparison, the first movie made $12.3 million on US DVD sales in its first week. Uwe Boll's BloodRayne movie made $7.6 million in US DVD sales in five weeks. Obviously sales of DVDs in general are down from 2006, but only by about 30-40%, which does not come close to accounting for this kind of drop.

The only good spin I could put on that is that it doesn't include foreign video sales (which are probably pretty good in places like Russia, Ukraine and Thailand where it did well in theatres) and there are newer markets like Video-on-Demand services where it can make up some additional revenue. Still though, even though I hated the movie, as a fan of the series the numbers are... well, discouraging.

Also, clearly this means we should convince Uwe Boll to direct the next one! (Sarcasm)

Just because Morgan is "usually the voice of reason" doesn't make it perfect, it has to be based on whether he could and would be willing to do the role I mean no offence to the guy but I doubt he's the right age to play someone like Blackwood.

Seeing as Morgan Freeman is a well known actor as well it would also depend on whether the movie budget would be able to supply enough to pay him.

Morgan isn't "usually" the voice of reason in most cases, that's really the role he plays seeing as he's in his seventies I doubt he'd be willing to throw himself across rooftops and the like. Despite me being a fan of Freeman I honestly think he wouldn't work well if he played Blackwood.

Personally I'd like to see a stand alone SH movie, something in the veins of SH2, however I'm not too positive it's possible (or worth as a film). In my opinion it's best that they'd rather focus more on the games.

With such crap they showed in "Revelation" it's no wonder the financial stats of it were low. I say no more films please. Or let someone else do it without f***ing up the whole thing. Don't get me wrong, the first SH film was quite good. It had some questionable changes and useless ideas, but also some redeeming factors. The second one just butchered one of my favourite SH games, SH3, contradicted the first film (which it's suppose to be connected to) and even contradicted itself countless times. Nuff said.

Spenced031 wrote:There's nothing absolutely wrong with the second installment, I like it just the way it is...most people didn't acccept the changes in the film, but I did! So please accept and deal with it...

If you like it, it's fine by me. You may have a different taste in films, but SH:R FAILS as an adaptation miserably and fails as a seprate creation as well. The first film made some stupid changes, but it was watchable and good, had some logic to it and some great ideas (the Otherworld transition) and visuals. Now, the sequel contradicts itself countless times, contradicts the source material, shallows the SH3 experience and contradicts the first SH movie, and it's a SEQUEL it's suppose to follow what was there quite... I don't know... closely maybe? I mean how can you make such a fantastic side character as Douglas Cartland such an obsolete and pointless character? How can you make such an disturbing sleaze ball as Vincent, a young, smooth-skinned love interest (of course with bullshit "I know you for a day I love you to the grave!"), how can you make Claudia a bullshit monster and have Piramid Head fight her at the end Power Rangers style, how can you shallow the revenge bit of SH3 with Harry being merely kidnapped instead of KILLED. This is inexcusable for me. Buuuut if you like it that way go ahead. I'd rather they make their own SH story separate from the games or not piss us off with shitty "adaptations".

Not to mention, that Revelations is a cheap blockbuster cash-in where they made it PG-16 so that kids can go watch it, it premiered in summer and it was in 3D. It just screams: "CASH-IN KATCHING!" I guess the visuals were ok (but still way worse than the first movie) and the actors did their best with the shit script they got?

Spenced, opinions about any installment in the series are going to vary. Please try not to be so gruff towards those who disagree with you.

As for SHR being a cash-in, I don't entirely agree. The producers certainly saw it as a cash-grab, but I don't believe the writer/director saw it that way. That doesn't mean I like SHR (I don't), but of all the mistakes Bassett made, I don't think only caring about cash was one of them.

I don't want to gruff towards no one, if it "sounded" like it, then I apologize.

Anyway, I value that everybody's got their different opinions on stuff, that's the beauty of this world, but I stand by my opinion. I think that the first four SH games deserve so much more from the filmmakers. Maybe the director didn't think about cash all the way, I don't know that, I never spoke to him, and he wouldn't tell even if I'd ask. So, if his intention was different, then what happened along the way? Why did we get a movie full of cheap jump-scares and with almost no depth, changing everything into almost a mockery? I want to find the reasoning behind it. The first one was ok, so they could either go for the second being better or worse. What happened that it got worse?

The jump scares were, according to the writer/director, entirely the work of the producers. Granted, it's known that Bassett hasn't been exactly honest in his statements to fans, and he may just be pushing the blame off onto anyone but himself. There was a lot of depth to SHR, even if it was ridiculously poorly executed. The plot holes and short runtime suggest a lack of thought, but I think Bassett tried to do something rich, and failed horribly.

If they really wanna make money off of Silent Hill, you got to stick with the storyline thats how the games themselves sold was the storyline. the first movie was hit or miss on the storyline. they hit and missed where the mother is going after Cyerl/heather/alissa they hit the searching for her but they missed by having her mother (in the movie) go after her. remember the storyline in the game. Harry odopted Ceryl, he found her on the side of the road. so Konami needs to step in and write the script. There was no woman with Harry.

That's incorrect. The games sold by their atmosphere and horror type, not the story. If you talk to the casual gamers who have played this series, you will hear lots of commentary about how scary and atmospheric the games are, but very little about the story.

The main character's gender had no effect on the movie's sales because no one except the hardcore purists gives a shit what the lead's sex is.

Oh dear, I hate to just jump in inside the thread after a long pause of activation, but I only come by to say my opinions.

In my opinion, its not about "the movie would be nice if it stay to the game", they did not call it an adaptation without a reason. Not everyone could accept it, but Silent Hill isn't a type of game that you could just put straight into a movie without a proper change. This is because the original Silent Hill game have an eerie dark atmosphere, which is not something you could just copy and paste into a totally different concept such as movie.

If they want to make a third movie, they could make it an adaptation from the game (preferably, SH4....because its too risky to make an adaptation of SH2) or make a totally original storyline that connected with the first movie (yet they need to do something with SHR), both are fine, but thats not the whole idea.

AlessaGillespie is right, its not about the gender or anything. I personally dislike SHR because all the retcons and cheap gore, plus shallow story and cheesy casual talk between Heather and Vincent, but the first film in my opinion are glorious. Im not saying it was perfect, but I like it despite the major change of plotline. Gans manage to make something totally different than what the fan expected before the movie aired (which is both can be good or bad, depend on you), and in my opinion, I did not expect it and I LOVE IT. The point is, I enjoy the first movie, I want a third movie, but they need to do something with that tall glass of retcons and plothole. *ehem revelations ehem*

But this is just opinion, some other would maybe agree, some may rage because they like SHR, and some may never ever want to hear such thing as third movie, its all just a matter of opinions.

However, it would be awesome if they could just make an original movie that continue the first movie, and just call SHR as spin-off from the first movie, not a prequel. Yet again this is my personal opinion.

If the next film is an adaptation to SH2, I swear upon my grave that I will turn into a bloody bull out of its stall. When watching "Path of Darkness" as the first movie's extras, one of the people (can't place a name on who...) call the fanbase "very protective over their game," and I think almost all of us can agree on that, and when it comes to SH2, that game... just no. I will literally cry if they turn that into a movie. It's practically holy, at least to me. Not to mention, the film world already gave Pyramid Head another role, so it would hella screw things up to have him in SH2. Some games just can't be turned into movies, and SH2 is one of them for me.

Lastly, I do have to point out that I enjoy both the storyline of the games and the entirely unique atmosphere just about equally. It shows the sickness that plagues some of humanity, and also how you absolutely cannot run away from your past, lest you wish to always suffer from it. You have to face it and let it go eventually. Then on the other side of the coin, you have an atmosphere that no other game has: nightmarish, mysterious, breaks the boundaries of reality and fantasy, and deep down, is like a psychedelic mind-trip. No other game will ever hold a candle against what SH has in that sense, and whether you look at the front or back side of the coin, they still sell.

I can't lie that we are indeed very protective, but thats something expected. SH2 is just like what I said, is not a good choice for a movie, and personally, I would also go nuts. And yes, the role of Pyramid Head is now as "father figure" of Alessa, a guardian. So it would pretty much crash with the story....unless more retcons coming (OH GOD PLEASE NO)

I rather have them made SH4 as movie, since it was more 'separated' to the main series, which mean whatever the movie director plan, it won't be as messed up like SHR.

When talking about the atmosphere and feel of playing Silent Hill games, we all agree that the dark atmosphere of a psychological game will always get you unlike the others. Nightmarish and twisted, silence and gloomy, full of mystery and unknown event, that will drive you down to feel the fear by yourself. Guilty is one of the worst emotions human can feel, unlike hatred and anger, it haut you into a new level of doom, which is what Silent Hill has offered, and success greatly.

Just read someone talk about Morgan Freeman jumping from rooftops. I don't know what game you're playing, but I never saw Howard do that. Please direct me to that game so I may play it, because it sounds pretty great.

BobLogical wrote:Just read someone talk about Morgan Freeman jumping from rooftops. I don't know what game you're playing, but I never saw Howard do that. Please direct me to that game so I may play it, because it sounds pretty great.

BobLogical wrote:
Just read someone talk about Morgan Freeman jumping from rooftops. I don't know what game you're playing, but I never saw Howard do that. Please direct me to that game so I may play it, because it sounds pretty great.

I was being half sarcastic about it. As he doesn't take many action heavy roles what require such actions.

BobLogical wrote:
That's my point. What is Howard doing that's so physically active? He walks around town with a bag.

I wasn't referring to Howard as a whole, someone mentioned Morgan's typical roles and I was simply saying as a guy who's in his seventies he's not going to do that sorta thing hence him having a more passive role.

In my previous point, as Freeman's a very well known actor in order for them to even consider hiring him they'd have to have enough budget to pay for him.

I believe Freeman has a higher pay than those two, plus I believe Bean had signed a contract for a sequel. And given the poor reception of the sequel, chances are budget may be lower for fear of bad sales and reception.

If movie 3 is made, it must follow right after the events of Revelation. I want to see Chris as the protagonist, looking for Rose. Honestly, they could easily make this a loose adaption of the game Silent Hill 2. Chris goes to Silent Hill to search for his wife and meets several others who were called into town.

Id like this film to conclude the current story arc, and the forth film be something new and original. I think part of the reason Silent Hill Revelation sucked so bad was it tried too hard to be like the third game but it wasn't. Id like to see something original for the 4th movie after the 3rd is complete.

If not original, id love to see a movie, word for word, follow the Silent Hill 2 script.

You guys sure about the third? Not meaning to harrass or anything,I love the first movie too,coz it brings out more Silent Hill-ish atmosphere but hated the second and that I might had to say that,as a Silent Hill fan(even if I only play like 2 of Silent Hill series),I got my heart stabbed to see the second being so suck.So,I'm hoping that if there would be a third Silent Hill movie,I want it good and undisappointing.

Shouldn't we talk about a possible "Silent Hill 2" movie adaptation in another thread?

Anyway, it's too bad that SH:R didn't sell well; I felt it was an "honest effort" given its limited budget, because while it could have hewed closer to the game, many of the game's elements, like all that wandering from the mall to the subway to the underpass/hill top centre before Heather gets home for the defining event of the game and some answers, just wouldn't have worked in a film.

Similarly, SH2's "oppressively lonely" (to summarize Zero Punctuation's review of the game) atmosphere largely only works because it's a game. In a movie, most of us expect something to be going on, something to be progressing while we're paying attention, otherwise most of us get bored (even though lots of auteur directors have used long takes where the camera does nothing but take in the scenery or watch someone/something do something very slowly). Seeing James aimlessly wander the fog-shrouded streets looking for keys and clues in nonsensical places works because we're in control of James and expect to find them however long it takes. But with regards to watching it on film, it's boring.

Still, I'm pretty sure many of us will be rounding up around the block if a Silent Hill 2 trailer emerges with Mary's Letter being read to Promise (Acoustic Version), showing James driving to Silent Hill, and then after "Waiting for You" we see him in hellish environs, with the trailer fading out to Mary repeating "James" over and over again through a staticky radio. The game's just that special to many, though I doubt a wider movie audience would appreciate Pyramid Head's suggestive antics with the monsters if those are included.

I don't see why Silent Hill 2 has to have a live-action movie. It's fine the way it is, and I think a film adaptation would be redundant.

Same goes for the majority of video games. Every single aspect, mannerism, imagery, sound, etc, was carefully crafted, and transitioning to a less-than-competent director is a huge artistic risk.

Is the general human population unable to comprehend video games or something? Like, if someone wants to watch a horror movie, and you put on a horror game and give them the controller, do they develop a severe allergic reaction and go "EW, INTERACTIVITY!" or something?

@AlexShepherd,I guess that Silent Hill 2 is more Silent Hill-ish than any other Silent Hill,it has the touching moment,sad moment,romantic moment,scary moment and everything a horror mystery movie could be so I'd probably agree on anyone's who wants a Silent Hill 2 movie,I don't know which actor should play James but I think a Silent Hill 2 movie could level-up the old Silent Hill into a whole new thing,I mean,have you ever seen a touching Silent Hill moment in the movie unless the first?I don't think so,so I'd probably stand on my opinion about that.I mean,I'm not afraid to say that a little sad,romantic past of the main character past would not destroy the whole thing about it.

I honestly would not look forward to another Silent Hill movie. Mostly because the movies completely disregarded the continuity, added WAY too much fan service, and the changes they did make to the continuity are some of the worst adaptation changes I have ever seen. Hell the last one was panned and with good reason. Though I have nothing against anyone who would like to see a third Silent Hill film, just that judging by the past films and how much they disrespected the games they were "based" on, unless the next director can make at least a decent adaptation, I think Silent Hill should stay away from the morons at Hollywood who completely misunderstand the games and just want to shell out cash. Seriously, it's like the directors only think, "Put Pyramid Head there, heard he's pretty popular, oh and five sexy faceless nurses over there, fans will probably like that, oh! And you know how Murphy Pendleton is in prison so he can get revenge on (Spoiler Withheld) for (Spoiler Withheld)? Yeah, how about they make up and become best buds! Everyone loves happy endings, right?"

Changing things =/= being disrespectful to the source material or its
creators

Changing things =/= being "morons"

Did you even pay attention to what I just said? Not at one point did I say changing things = any of those, I was trying to say that the changes they did make to the games they were making adaptations of were awful!

Changing things =/= being disrespectful to the source material or its creators

Changing things =/= being "morons"

And I know when making an adaptation you need to make changes, book/game or not! I'm just saying that they made horrible and utterly needless changes! (Seriously, why the HELL did the director of the first film make Harry Mason a woman? Actually, I know why, and that reason is incredibly stupid!)

No, your post pretty much boiled down to "If it's different, it must be stupid", which goes with your name-calling and attacks on the creators. I'm guessing you probably only know the popular reason for changing Harry's gender, and are unaware that the writers felt the alternate reality was meant to be matriarchal in nature, and wanted to expand on that. There were NO needless changes in the first movie, and any in the sequel were related to the first movie's canon. All of them had a reason for being there, regardless of whether you like them or not. Classing the creators as being "morons" and ignorant of the games is straight bs. Also bs is the claim that the movies didn't have strong story ties to the games. Any non-biased viewer can see the massive similarities between the stories. You also fail to realize that the writers and directors of both movies are not "Hollywood" in the least.

AlessaGillespie wrote:
No, your post pretty much boiled down to "If it's different, it must be stupid", which goes with your name-calling and attacks on the creators. I'm guessing you probably only know the popular reason for changing Harry's gender, and are unaware that the writers felt the alternate reality was meant to be matriarchal in nature, and wanted to expand on that. There were NO needless changes in the first movie, and any in the sequel were related to the first movie's canon. All of them had a reason for being there, regardless of whether you like them or not. Classing the creators as being "morons" and ignorant of the games is straight bs. Also bs is the claim that the movies didn't have strong story ties to the games. Any non-biased viewer can see the massive similarities between the stories. You also fail to realize that the writers and directors of both movies are not "Hollywood" in the least.

Alright, I may have gotten some facts wrong, but the fact that you say I don't know the reason they changed Harry's gender pisses me off to no end, because, this isn't your fault you didn't know, I DID know. And the reason is incredibly stupid! Because, how is going out of your way to find your missing daughter strictly feminine? How is taking charge of the women in your life strictly feminine? How is taking charge of the situation at hand strictly feminine?
Oh, and why would I be bashing the changes of the game if I knew ONE? Let me list off a couple besides the gender change. Alessa was burned because the town thought she was a witch for not having a father, Dhalia Gillespi is now a sympathetic character, Sean Bean's pointless role, Cybil's pointless sacrifice, Pyramid Head, Sexy Faceless Nurses, and a significant lack of subtlety. Now, to be fair, this movie does some things right. The effects were amazing, the monsters and atmosphere were spot on,(you know, besides Pyramid Head and the Nurses) the usage of orange lighting to symbolize fire is very clever, and the otherworld shift is incredibly awesome. Oh, and I take back what I said about the directors and Hollywood, it was just in the heat of the moment.

Yes, I am fully aware that Gans has said that one of the reasons he changed the gender was because he felt Harry was feminine in nature. However, he's said the main reason was because he felt the Otherworld is matriarchal in nature and wanted to further that theme, which couldn't be done with a male lead. And let's be fair, how do you really think moviegoers would react to a male character who faints and screams constantly? That may be how real life works, but that is not what the majority of audiences want to see in a male character. Thus, the gender change is far from pointless, and since Harry's attitude, motivations, and role are kept the same, I fail to see how his genitals are important at all.

Alessa's reason for being burned was changed because there is simply no room in a 2 hour movie for explaining the ritual, explaining the Pagan cult, explaining the God, and explaining what Alessa was doing to combat the growing God. If they did that, it would be 2 hours of straight exposition, with no time at all for character development, atmosphere, or scares.

Gans felt Dahlia would be better fleshed out as more than the borderline cackling witch she is in the game. Since the god plot couldn't be added, it was instead explained that Alessa was hated for Dahlia's indiscretion, which means it wouldn't make sense for Dahlia to hate her child. Christabella fulfilled her role, so it's not like the whole thing disappeared.

Sean Bean's role was forced by the studio, so Gans and Avary can't be blamed for it.

Cybil's sacrifice was anything but pointless. It gave Rose time to make the deal with Alessa, and thus saved Sharon's life. It also served to underline that the cult can and will kill ANYONE associated with Alessa, as well as exhibiting Alessa's cruelty in allowing Cybil to be captured in the first place.

Pyramid Head is the manifestation of Alessa's fear of men and religious intolerance. He acts to symbolically represent her violation when he attacks Rose and Cybil in the janitor's closet, and his murder of Anna is a symbolic representation of a theme that appears all throughout the film (the town is constantly "skinned" by Alessa each time the Otherworld takes over).

The Nurses are the women who cared for Alessa, and likely represent Alessa's jealousy that she could never grow up to be beautiful like them.

Whether it was subtle or not is personal opinion, and I STRONGLY disagree, particularly considering the load of symbolism that went right over most people's heads, not to mention the story elements that weren't understood by many audience members.

My point being that, regardless of what anyone thinks of the changes, they were made for a reason, which the creators believed would benefit the movie's story. No one ever said the movie was going to be in the same continuity as the games, so changes to fit it to a movie format should be expected.

AlessaGillespie wrote:
Yes, I am fully aware that Gans has said that one of the reasons he changed the gender was because he felt Harry was feminine in nature. However, he's said the main reason was because he felt the Otherworld is matriarchal in nature and wanted to further that theme, which couldn't be done with a male lead. And let's be fair, how do you really think moviegoers would react to a male character who faints and screams constantly? That may be how real life works, but that is not what the majority of audiences want to see in a male character. Thus, the gender change is far from pointless, and since Harry's attitude, motivations, and role are kept the same, I fail to see how his genitals are important at all.

Alessa's reason for being burned was changed because there is simply no room in a 2 hour movie for explaining the ritual, explaining the Pagan cult, explaining the God, and explaining what Alessa was doing to combat the growing God. If they did that, it would be 2 hours of straight exposition, with no time at all for character development, atmosphere, or scares.

Gans felt Dahlia would be better fleshed out as more than the borderline cackling witch she is in the game. Since the god plot couldn't be added, it was instead explained that Alessa was hated for Dahlia's indiscretion, which means it wouldn't make sense for Dahlia to hate her child. Christabella fulfilled her role, so it's not like the whole thing disappeared.

Sean Bean's role was forced by the studio, so Gans and Avary can't be blamed for it.

Cybil's sacrifice was anything but pointless. It gave Rose time to make the deal with Alessa, and thus saved Sharon's life. It also served to underline that the cult can and will kill ANYONE associated with Alessa, as well as exhibiting Alessa's cruelty in allowing Cybil to be captured in the first place.

Pyramid Head is the manifestation of Alessa's fear of men and religious intolerance. He acts to symbolically represent her violation when he attacks Rose and Cybil in the janitor's closet, and his murder of Anna is a symbolic representation of a theme that appears all throughout the film (the town is constantly "skinned" by Alessa each time the Otherworld takes over).

The Nurses are the women who cared for Alessa, and likely represent Alessa's jealousy that she could never grow up to be beautiful like them.

Whether it was subtle or not is personal opinion, and I STRONGLY disagree, particularly considering the load of symbolism that went right over most people's heads, not to mention the story elements that weren't understood by many audience members.

My point being that, regardless of what anyone thinks of the changes, they were made for a reason, which the creators believed would benefit the movie's story. No one ever said the movie was going to be in the same continuity as the games, so changes to fit it to a movie format should be expected.

First off, Cybil could've easily pulled that bar free from the other side. That and, NO! Pyramid Head is essentially James' personal punisher, and a manifestation of his need to punish himself for what he did to Mary! If the director wanted a monster that symbolized Alessa's fear of men and religious intolerance than fine, but then create a monster! Don't just randomly throw a really popular monster from one of the past games! I guess I could understand Gams and Avary seeing Pyramid Head's masculinity allowing him to "assume" that symbolism, but he had no business being there in the first place. As for the nurses, could they at least gone for an original design other than the Bubble Head Nurses?

As I said before, the movie is not part of the game canon. James Sunderland does not exist in the movie universe. Pyramid Head is Alessa's monster in that canon, and that is perfectly fine because there is absolutely nothing in the movie's continuity that goes against it. Why would they use a different Nurse design when the game one would work for that storyline just fine? Again, James and Mary do NOT exist in that universe, so there is no need to be chained to their story. And honestly, only a small minority of the audience didn't like PH and the Nurses, regardless of whether or not they liked the movie as a whole. There has to be a balance between what game purists want, and what everyone else wants. PH is an overwhelmingly popular symbol of the series that draws fans in by the thousands. They would be fools not to include him or the Nurses, and the fact that he was given deep meaning puts his usage well beyond just trying to please audiences.

You aren't understanding the point of Cybil's sacrifice. She did it to ensure the cultists were busy with her, so that Rose would have time to find Sharon. That's why the film goes out of its way to mention her actions in saving a boy 3 years earlier - to show that she's the kind of character to willingly sacrifice her life to save a child.

AlessaGillespie wrote:
As I said before, the movie is not part of the game canon. James Sunderland does not exist in the movie universe. Pyramid Head is Alessa's monster in that canon, and that is perfectly fine because there is absolutely nothing in the movie's continuity that goes against it. Why would they use a different Nurse design when the game one would work for that storyline just fine? Again, James and Mary do NOT exist in that universe, so there is no need to be chained to their story. And honestly, only a small minority of the audience didn't like PH and the Nurses, regardless of whether or not they liked the movie as a whole. There has to be a balance between what game purists want, and what everyone else wants. PH is an overwhelmingly popular symbol of the series that draws fans in by the thousands. They would be fools not to include him or the Nurses, and the fact that he was given deep meaning puts his usage well beyond just trying to please audiences.

You aren't understanding the point of Cybil's sacrifice. She did it to ensure the cultists were busy with her, so that Rose would have time to find Sharon. That's why the film goes out of its way to mention her actions in saving a boy 3 years earlier - to show that she's the kind of character to willingly sacrifice her life to save a child.

Okay I'll give in on Cybil's sacrifice but there is still NO REASON FOR PYRAMID HEAD TO BE THERE! I don't fucking care if it's an alternate universe, Pyramid Head still should not be there because, like I said, he is James' personal punisher! His appearance is purely fan service and do you want to know why Pyramid Head was so popular? Well first of all, keep in mind that before the movie the only appearances of Pyramid Head and the Bubble Head Nurses was Silent Hill 2. Both were so popular because Pyramid Head was a fantastic, unique, and original creation. The Nurses were popular because of what people said the game did best; symbolism. They loved how creative and vague the designs were to match the symbolism, it was clever, it was creative, it was unique! Pyramid Head has no business being in the movie because he never had anything to do with even the original Silent Hill! It was a mark of laziness to just stick Pyramid Head in there because "Oh, it's an alternate universe and he worked with the symbolism we stuck him with so it's automatically okay!" No! It really isn't! And it's not like it would've been hard to come up with an original monster to match the symbolism! In fact the symbolism could lead to a ton of possibilities! And before you ask "Like what?" I don't know I'm not the Art Director! (or whoever designs the monsters)

@Regularshowman,I guess that his existance and appearance in the movie is just a fan service,but,I had a feeling that the director pt him inside it for some reason other than laziness,like,if I could say my feelings,I would say it kinda fit the whole thing,it might look ridiculous for those who knows Silent Hill better than them and me.The whole thing were forced,actually,outting PH inside is pretty good to cover up how they didn't want to lose much money to make another monster that is original,clever,masculine,and unique.The reason he's there was forced to fit the whole damn plot of the movie itself,to make it different,to make it alternate.

You completely missed the part where I explained that the desires of purists must be balanced against those of everybody else. Purists who cannot accept an alternate timeline only make up part of the pre-existing Silent Hill fanbase, yet alone the audience members who know nothing of the games and do not care one bit what he meant anywhere else. It makes no sense that they ignore something that all these other people would enjoy just to make a small minority happy. Calling them "lazy" for actually doing their jobs and giving people something they knew they would enjoy is being ridiculous. You can't expect a big budget movie be made to cater only to purists. If they gave him no meaning at all, you might have a point, but that's not what happened. Not only did they give him meaning, he ended up with double meanings and several scenes that acted as symbolism. There was clearly a huge amount of thought that went into how he fit into the story, even going so far as to alter his image so that he was based on a Goya painting. You can talk about why YOU liked PH and the Nurses, but let's not speak for everybody, because many fans like them for other reasons. Even more, many fans of the game enjoy him in the movie, and understand it's an alternate universe. Also, you're incorrect that the movie was the first appearance of PH outside of SH2. The comics started showing him years before the movie came out, and one of them includes a sexualized nurse clearly based on the Bubble Head, so again the movie wasn't first.

AlessaGillespie wrote:
You completely missed the part where I explained that the desires of purists must be balanced against those of everybody else. Purists who cannot accept an alternate timeline only make up part of the pre-existing Silent Hill fanbase, yet alone the audience members who know nothing of the games and do not care one bit what he meant anywhere else. It makes no sense that they ignore something that all these other people would enjoy just to make a small minority happy. Calling them "lazy" for actually doing their jobs and giving people something they knew they would enjoy is being ridiculous. You can't expect a big budget movie be made to cater only to purists. If they gave him no meaning at all, you might have a point, but that's not what happened. Not only did they give him meaning, he ended up with double meanings and several scenes that acted as symbolism. There was clearly a huge amount of thought that went into how he fit into the story, even going so far as to alter his image so that he was based on a Goya painting. You can talk about why YOU liked PH and the Nurses, but let's not speak for everybody, because many fans like them for other reasons. Even more, many fans of the game enjoy him in the movie, and understand it's an alternate universe. Also, you're incorrect that the movie was the first appearance of PH outside of SH2. The comics started showing him years before the movie came out, and one of them includes a sexualized nurse clearly based on the Bubble Head, so again the movie wasn't first.

1. Well could the director at least considered the purists!
2. I will stand by my statement that Pyramid Head should not have been in the movie until they day I die, THEY SHOULD HAVE CREATED AN ORIGINAL MONSTER AND NOT USED HIM JUST BECAUSE HE'S POPULAR!
3. I listed the general reason why people liked Pyramid Head and the Nurses.
4. First off, who read the comics? Second of all, I was reffering to his second mainstream appearance.
5. This talk is over.

You're still completely not getting it. Purists were considered, which is why the story is as close to the game as it is. Regardless, purists are a super tiny minority of the film's audience, so only an incompetent filmmaker would place them above all others. You're insisting it's some completely terrible, life-ending decision to include a monster that most people love and that is the figurehead of the series. In the end, he was loved by the majority of viewers, proving that they made the right decision. I am not saying you have to like PH's inclusion, but what I am saying is that the decision was made for a very good reason and he was not "lazily" tossed in there, as you like to insist. You can scream all you want about how angry it makes you that he was in the movie, but it's not going to change the fact that the majority of viewers disagree with you. And a lot of people read the comics. Don't write off fans who like different parts of the series than you do; that's not cool. Lastly, chill out. Making blind accusations of the movie creators and writing in all caps just makes you seem overly emotional. It's just a movie, and the games are just video games.

AlessaGillespie wrote:
You're still completely not getting it. Purists were considered, which is why the story is as close to the game as it is. Regardless, purists are a super tiny minority of the film's audience, so only an incompetent filmmaker would place them above all others. You're insisting it's some completely terrible, life-ending decision to include a monster that most people love and that is the figurehead of the series. In the end, he was loved by the majority of viewers, proving that they made the right decision. I am not saying you have to like PH's inclusion, but what I am saying is that the decision was made for a very good reason and he was not "lazily" tossed in there, as you like to insist. You can scream all you want about how angry it makes you that he was in the movie, but it's not going to change the fact that the majority of viewers disagree with you. And a lot of people read the comics. Don't write off fans who like different parts of the series than you do; that's not cool. Lastly, chill out. Making blind accusations of the movie creators and writing in all caps just makes you seem overly emotional. It's just a movie, and the games are just video games.

I've seen that - and he got literally almost every single point completely wrong. He doesn't even sort of understand the movie, and apparently is completely incapable of using any form of logic to explain even the tiniest plot points not spoonfed to him. I'm genuinely surprised he didn't complain that the film never showed the sun rising after the opening night sequence, and declare it as a plothole that it went from night on the cliff to daylight under the tree. But when someone opens their video with hand waving of the director flat-out saying his theory is wrong, I guess it's to be expected that everything else he says is going to be ridiculously ignorant.

AlessaGillespie wrote:Please do not make insulting statements about fans who disagree with you. What film a person likes is not an indicator of intelligence.

Of course it is. Everything a person does is an indicator of intelligence, lol. But if you honestly believe the Silent Hill films were, even by video game movie standards, even remotely good, then you have no idea what makes a good movie.

If you'd like to perhaps tell me what you liked about the films or what you think they did right, I'm all for that. But simply putting your own opinion on the table and asking people not to call you out on it makes little sense.

I loved everything about the first movie. The characters, the overwhelming symbolism, the deep plot, the music, the visuals. It's easily my favorite movie ever made.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my previous post. Making rude remarks about other users is not allowed here, and I am officially asking you to stop. Discussing the movies is fine, but insults will not be tolerated.

I'd like to point out, using a website to dictate reasons on why a film sucked doesn't make it an obligation to believe the film sucked.

If you personally believe the film was bad, fine. But using a website to try and prove a point over an opinion really isn't anything.

Uh...I'd really like to know what you're on about there, Riley. How is using a site dedicated to rating movies "not anything?" Rotten Tomatoes is a very famous site where experts rate films without personal bias but just their expertise. So of course I have something, I have the expert's judgement of the movie. And what do you know, they seem to agree with me.

AlessaGillespie wrote:I have not been censoring anybody, and you cannot speak to anyone here that way, admin or otherwise. Your behavior has been nothing but antagonistic in this thread, and I am quickly tiring of it.

I don't care what reviewers think. They do not decide my opinions for me. All I know is that I liked it, and that is all that is important to me. Their opinions are not fact, nor is mine.

Yeah, you have. You've censored one person blatantly by removing their comment completely because they called you out on your little opinion and you have indirectly censored multiple others who felt the same way. Just cause you are an admin doesn't mean that you are untouchable or that your opinion is above criticism. As far as I'm concerned, you haven't made the slightest effort to see things from other people's perspecive but arrogantly stuck with "it's my opinion", as if that somehow means that others can't comment on it.

If you don't care what reviewers think, why are you arguing about this? The reviewers obviously know more than you do about what makes a film good. Sounds to me like you don't care about anyone else's opinion but your own. How self-centered of you.

I'd like to point out, using a website to dictate reasons on why a film sucked doesn't make it an obligation to believe the film sucked.

If you personally believe the film was bad, fine. But using a website to try and prove a point over an opinion really isn't anything.

Uh...I'd really like to know what you're on about there, Riley. How is using a site dedicated to rating movies "not anything?" Rotten Tomatoes is a very famous site where experts rate films without personal bias but just their expertise. So of course I have something, I have the expert's judgement of the movie. And what do you know, they seem to agree with me.

Seriously, I am baffled by your lack of logic.

My point being, using a website as a way to back up your website, regardless of popularity isn't something what should be used to back up a way of saying a movie's bad or not.

You appear to be misinterpreting what I've said so my supposed "lack of logic" doesn't have anything to do with it. If you like a movie, fine, if you don't like it, fine but using a reviewer as a way of "proving" a movie's bad isn't anything.

And I have to agree with Alessa, you have been rather antagonistic on the thread and it'd be appreciated if you lost such attitude.

This entire conversation has defeated the original intent of the thread as it has, should it continue I'm locking the thread as it appears to have just turned into a free for all on whether or not the movie's shit.